Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL AZIZ GORMANI VS Respondent: REGIONAL MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, D.G. KHAN
2000 P L C (C
2000 P L C (C.S.) 291
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Abdul Hameed Khan Khattak and Akhtar Hasan Khan, Members
ABDUL AZIZ GORMANI
Versus
REGIONAL MANAGER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, D.G. KHAN and another
Appeal, No.44‑P of 1999, decided on 14th April, 1999.
(a) Limitation‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Doctrine of limitation was based on legal maxims that delay defeats equity; time and tide wait for none; and law helps the vigilant and not the indolent ‑‑‑Litigations undergone before' incompetent forums, need not be condoned‑‑‑Courts were not supposed to compromise on limitation specially when delay was contumacious as delay of each day was to be justified by party concerned.
PLD 1983 SC 385; 1975 SCMR 259; 1985 SCMR 333; 1985 SCMR 890; 1991 SCMR 1841; 1997 SCMR 1167; 1998 SCMR 307; 1998 SCMR 785; 1999 MLD 330; PLD 1988 SC 144; PLD 1995 SC 396; 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1007 and 1988 SCMR 1354 ref.
(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2‑A, 4 & 6‑‑‑Down gradation of civil servant‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑ ‑Penalty of down gradation by four stages lower imposed was reduced in Departmental appeal to one stage lower in time scale‑‑‑Appellant initially challenged the penalty by petition before Labour Court under S. 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was dismissed‑‑‑Appellant invoked jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal‑‑‑Pending appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal, appellant became civil servant as a result of insertion of S. 2‑A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and appeal filed before Labour Appellate Tribunal suo motu abated‑‑‑Appeal filed by appellant before Service Tribunal long after expiry of ninety days from abatement of his appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal, was time‑barred and in absence of any plausible reason for condonation of delay, was liable to be dismissed on that ground.
PLD 1978 SC 195 ref.
Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.
Mukhtar Ahmad Tarar for ADBP.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK (MEMBER).‑‑By means of this appeal, appellant has assailed the order dated 30‑6‑1985 whereby initially penalty of his down‑gradation by four stages lower in his time scale of pay on the charge of absence from duty etc. was imposed but as a result of his departmental appeal decision, the said penalty was reduced to one stage lower in his time scale of pay.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant, a P.A. in the respondent‑Bank was charge‑sheeted on 14‑5‑1985 (Annexure‑A) to which he made reply as (Annexure‑B) denying the allegations. An inquiry was conducted into the allegations and as a consequence thereof the above penalty (Annexure‑C) was imposed on him which was, however, reduced as explained above due to departmental appeal decision (Annexure‑E). Thereafter, the appellant Served grievance notice (Annexure‑F) and then he invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court Islamabad under section 25‑A I.R.O. of 1969 by making petition (Annexure‑G) but vide the judgment (Annexure‑1) the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Islamabad, dismissed his grievance petition whereafter the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad, which was disposed of on 23‑11‑1998 as by insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appellant had become civil servant and the Labour Appellate Tribunal stood divested of jurisdiction and on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant the appeal was disposed of accordingly with the directions to bring the grievance through the remedy of appeal before this Tribunal and the appellant accordingly preferred this appeal here on 16‑1‑1999.
3. In response to pre‑admission notice, the respondents filed parawise comments wherein they raised the legal objection of limitation besides many other objections and on merits, the impugned order was defended.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Undoubtedly the appellant become civil servant as a result of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 since 10‑6‑1997 and the period for availing legal remedies for filing of appeals in case of abated matters falls under section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which prescribes only 90 days effective from 10‑6‑1997 meaning thereby the appellant could seek remedy before this Tribunal on or before 8‑9‑1997 and not thereafter but it transpires that the appellant for the reasons best known to him ignoring these legal implications wasted his much valuable time before an incompetent forum since after 10‑6‑1997. It was inter alia held in PLD 1978 SC 195 that abatement is suo motu under operation of law for which formal declaration of abatement is not required by any legal forum. There remains always legal contest in a Court of law and in such matters Courts are supposed to resort to deliver legal dispensation of justice. The legal system, specially the doctrine of limitation is based on the following legal maxims:
"(i) delay defeats equity;
(ii) time and tide wait for none; and
(iii) law helps the vigilant not the indolent."
6. It was held in the following authorities that litigations undergone before, incompetent forums need not be condoned;
"(a) PLD 1983 SC 385; (b) 1975 SCMR 259; (c)1985 SCMR 333 and 890; (d) 1991 SCMR 1841 and (e) 1997 SCMR 1167. "
7. The Courts are not supposed to compromise on limitation specially when delay is contumacious like the present case as delay of each day is to be justified by the party concerned in view of the ratio of decision given in the following judgments of the Superior Courts.
(i) 1998 SCMR 307;
(ii) 1998 SCMR 785;
(iii) 1999 MLD (Kar.) 330;
(iv) PLD 1988 SC 144 and
(v) PLD 1995 SC 396. "
8. It was further held in 1998 PLC (CS) 1007 and 1988 SCMR 1354 that limitation closes doors of justice for litigants.
9. The reason available in the application made for condonation of delay in the instant case, also does not seem to be weighty or plausible, in that, according to the appellant, he was unable to approach this Tribunal within required period as his mother was seriously ill during December, 1998 and January, 1999 but no specific date of commencement of such illness has been mentioned therein nor alleged ground of illness is supported by any medical certificate or proof. This seems to be a lame and general excuse so often raised in such‑like applications. Even otherwise there is no explanation for failure of the appellant to prefer appeal before this forum since after 8‑9‑1997 till end of November, 1998, even if the alleged illness of mother of appellant is taken into account relating to the period from December, 1998 to January, 1999 (for sake of arguments) as he had been prosecuting his cause before an incompetent forum since after 8‑9‑1997 till 23‑11‑1998 and legally speaking he was not supposed to obtain abatement order from there before approaching this Tribunal in the light of above observations of the superior Courts.
10. For all the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being time‑barred fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
11. Parties to be informed.
H.B.T./322/FST Appeal dismissed.